How To Protect Your Rights During A DWI Traffic Stop in the Fort Worth area.
Let's dispense with the obvious. If you're drunk, then don't drive. Don't drive, because you don't want to hurt someone else or yourself. Don't drive, because you don't want to smash up your car or damage someone else's property. And finally, don't drive, because you don't want to get arrested, lose your license, pay huge fines, have your insurance go through the roof and perhaps even lose your job.
That said, let's move to the real world where you do not have to drive drunk to be arrested and found guilty of drunk driving. This is the world that says any person with virtually any amount of alcohol in their system is a candidate for a drunk-driving citation and 100% responsible for any accident that may occur, regardless of who caused the accident. This is not an exaggeration, and you should not assume that because you drink and drive in a responsible manner that you are immune from the "drunk-driver" label and the consequences of a drunk-driving conviction.
If you drink and drive in the Fort Worth area, no matter how conservatively, there is a real possibility that you could be stopped, arrested, and convicted of drunk driving. First, most people do not realize how few drinks it takes to exceed the legal standards of .08 % or .1 % Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). For the average sized person, three or four drinks could easily place them in the "drunk-driver" category. However, based solely on a police officer's claim that you were "impaired," even though your BAC was below the legal threshold, you can be convicted as a drunk driver. The only additional evidence needed would be proof of some measurable amount of alcohol in your system.
Is this fair? No. Is it right? No. Does this improve highway safety? No. In fact, it detracts from highway safety.
How do you avoid being caught up in a DWI nightmare in Tarrant County? Well, you could avoid drinking and driving altogether. That means no beer after the ball game, no wine with your meal, no drinking at holiday parties, sticking to soft drinks at wedding receptions, no meeting your friends after work for a drink and socializing. You get the picture. However, if you choose to drink and drive, there are a number of things you can do to lesson the likelihood of being stopped and charged with a drunk-driving violation.
Your Vehicle
Police officers in the Fort Worth area need an excuse to stop a vehicle; there must be some probable violation to justify stopping your vehicle. Frankly, they can always come up with an excuse to stop any vehicle they want to -- a dirty license plate is a violation. But, if given the choice, they will stop the vehicles with the most obvious violations. Speeding, failing to use signals, rolling through a stop sign or driving with burned out lights are common justifications for stopping a motorist. Most of these are controllable items or situations.
For example, once every two or three weeks turn on all the lights on your vehicles(s). Check both headlight beams, taillights, clearance lights, brake lights and turn signals. And don't forget the license plate light (this is a favorite!) Your headlights should be properly aimed, also. Make sure your license plates are properly affixed and readable.
Darkly tinted windows, loud exhaust pipes, broken lenses, unrepaired body damage and cracked windows all serve as the necessary excuse to stop a vehicle.
If the vehicle you are driving is registered in the name of someone who has been convicted of drunk driving it would be wise to not drink and drive in that vehicle. Police officers spend large amounts of time riding around reading license plate numbers into a central computer. When they find a vehicle licensed to someone convicted of drunk driving, especially late at night, they will always find an excuse to pull that car over.
Traffic Laws
Obviously, violating traffic laws in the Fort Worth area or elsewhere is a good way to attract the attention of police officers. At the same time, driving below an already under posted speed limit, signaling a turn a half a mile before turning or not taking your turn at a stop sign will also attract attention. It is virtually impossible to drive more than a mile or two without violating some arcane traffic law. If you have the option of pulling into a parking lot or otherwise avoid having a patrol car follow you for a long distance there will be less likelihood of being stopped for a traffic violation. Making sure to wear your seat belt is one way to convey an aura of "safety."
Driving Time And Place in the Fort Worth area
The chances of being stopped under a variety of pretenses at "bar time" are fairly high. However, the police are also attuned to special events like festivals, sports contests, large wedding receptions, church picnics and company parties. Enforcement may be intensified in these environments. If you are moving with traffic and your vehicle is well maintained and not "standing out" for any reason, you are much more likely not to be stopped for enforcement purposes.
If you have alternative routes that you can take to your destination, particularly in the later evening, that avoid those areas with the largest concentrations of taverns, bars and nightclubs, you will also be avoiding the largest concentration of enforcement activity. Taking the longer, less traveled route may turn out to be a short cut in the long run!
You've Been Stopped by the police after drinking, Now What?
Despite your best efforts, a just-burned-out headlight has given a police officer an excuse to stop you. Under other circumstances you might welcome being told about your failed headlight before you left the lighted city streets. But, you have been drinking, not in excess, but drinking never the less. What should you do?
First, always keep documents like your registration and insurance card in a readily accessible location. You do not want to have to fish through your glove box, or worse, to not find these documents when you need them. When the blue lights go on, find a safe place to pull over, always on the right side of the road whenever possible. Next, turn your dome light on and place both your hands on the steering wheel where the police officer can see them. This makes him more comfortable about his safety and conveys a sense of personal control on your part. If the opportunity presents itself, it's best to roll down your window and vent the passenger compartment of accumulated odors prior to actually stopping.
Be courteous, but admit to nothing. If the officer asks if you have been drinking return his question with a question, "would you like to see my license?" or "why do you ask?" Do not admit to drinking so much as one beer. You are under no obligation to give the officer any information beyond that on your driver's license. Your admission to drinking gives the officer "cause" to pursue the matter further. Without that admission he must base his decision on pursuing a DWI arrest on your driving, or mannerisms after the stop. A burned-out headlight is not an indication of impairment and neither is a refusal to chitchat about your night's events.
If he decides to push the issue, he may ask you to step out of your vehicle, which the courts say is permissible. He may ask you to perform certain tests, "just to prove you're capable of driving safely." Do not perform any of these tests. You are not required to perform these tests and there is no penalty for refusal. The ONLY reason these tests are given is to give the officer justification to require you to take a chemical test (breath, blood or urine) to determine your Blood Alcohol Content, BAC and of course more and better ammunition in court. These encounters are nearly always being videotaped. No one ever "passes" one of these roadside sobriety tests, not even the "soberest" of the sober.
Texas does require a driver to submit to a chemical test, or face administrative driver's license penalties. However, the police officer must have at least "reasonable suspicion" that you are impaired by alcohol to legally ask you to take one of the chemical tests. If you show no obvious signs of intoxication, have made no admission to drinking and have performed no tests that he can claim you performed inadequately, his grounds for forcing the testing are limited to the way you were driving and your present(unmanipulated)demeanor. If your drinking has not been clearly excessive, neither your driving nor your demeanor should support reasonable suspicion to demand a chemical BAC test. The only common defense for refusing to take a chemical test is that the officer did not have a lawful reason to stop you or probable cause to require the test. Refusal to participate in the charade of a roadside sobriety test in the Fort Worth area are not probable cause to require a chemical test.
If you are not "drunk," it is usually advantageous to you to have the stop recorded on a video camera. Most police cars in Tarrant, Parker, Wise, Denton, and Dallas County are equipped with video cameras for just this purpose. However, police officers will sometimes avoid turning the camera on if they think the resulting documentation will detract from the possibility of a conviction. Ask the officer if his car has a video camera and if he has it turned on. If he does not have the camera turned on and you believe it would be advantageous to your defense, ask him to turn it on, that you want the stop recorded. This sends a message that you are not afraid to have your mannerisms and demeanor judged by an impartial judge or jury. It's very difficult for a police officer in the Fort Worth area to claim your "speech was slurred" or that you were "staggering" when you got out of the car when a video film shows a composed articulate defendant being interrogated on an unlit roadside by a uniformed, gun-toting agent of the law.
If you notice that the officer is intent on sticking a flashlight in your face or in your car, it is probably because the flashlight is equipped with an electronic alcohol sensor that detects the presence of alcohol. Texas Alcohol Beverage Control Agents (I call them Liquor-Dicks are notorious for having these devices.) You do not have to accept this "probing." You can instruct the officer to keep the device away from your face and out of your vehicle. He is free to look into your vehicle, but only from the exterior, unless he requests to search your vehicle. NEVER voluntarily permit a search of your vehicle. To search your car, depending on the jurisdiction, an officer must have probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion, a suspicion he must be able to explain in terms of what he is looking for and why he believes he will find this specific illegal item in your vehicle. There is absolutely no good that can come to you by voluntarily allowing the police to search your vehicle.
Another pre-screening test that falls in and out of favor in DWI Arrest in the Fort Worth area is called the nystagmus test. By shining a flashlight in the drivers eyes and instructing the driver to scan left and right the officer looks for a jerking eye motion that is sometimes an indication of intoxication. It takes training and experience on the part of the police officer to perform this test. In reality, jerky eye movement or not, the officer can say he performed the test, detected the telltale eye movement, and therefore felt justified in ordering the defendant to take a chemical test. Again, you do not have to take the nystagmus test and should refuse to do so. Just as with the other pre-screening tests, the only reason they are conducted is to justify requiring a chemical test and to build a case against the defendant.
Will your refusals to cooperate with the officer's requests for pre-screening tests irritate the officer? Yes, they probably will. But, keep in mind that if he asked you to take these tests he has already decided to find a way to justify requiring you to take a mandated chemical test. There is no good reason for you to assist him in this effort. Furthermore, if he senses a lawsuit in the making, if he falsely arrests you for drunk driving, he might just decide to find an easier target to fulfill his nightly quota.
Of equal importance, without the additional evidence that the pre-screening tests provide, or pretend to provide, the prosecution will find it very difficult to make a case against you, if your BAC is close to the legal limit, or below.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, if the officer decides a chemical test is justified you typically have three choices of test procedures: Breathalyzer, urine test, or blood test. Frequently, the police will use a Breathalyzer test for the initial screening. However, you are almost always guaranteed the option of taking one of the other two tests, at your request. Of course you have the right to refuse ALL of them and absolutely should if you have any doubt what the results may be.
The Breathalyzer is the most inaccurate means of measuring your BAC. These devices are pretty much garbage. Without going into great detail, it should be understood that the error factor can be as high as 50 %. If the Breathalyzer generates a reading that confirms your BAC is within legal limits, you should be free to leave. If the Breathalyzer test results indicate an illegal BAC, you should immediately request one of the two other tests, the most accurate of which is the blood test. If the police refuse to assist you in obtaining a second test, demand an opportunity to obtain a second test, even if it must be at your own expense.
A legitimate police stop for a suspected drunk-driving incident does not have to rely on trick questions, sensing devices, or gimmicks to justify a chemical test of the driver. The driver's lack of control of the vehicle, his inability to reasonably react to questions and requests, and his physical reactions will be a dead give-away of his impaired condition. Unfortunately, the government, certain commercial interests, and self-serving organizations have institutionalized a negative stereotype of anyone who drinks and drives, no matter how responsibly. By labeling virtually all drivers who drink and drive as "drunk drivers," they have created a situation where responsible and constructive citizens are at risk of suffering huge fines, exorbitant insurance charges, loss of driving licenses, confiscation of personal property, and even incarceration, all for the singular act of violating an arbitrary and unreasonable BAC standard.
If you have been arrested for DWI in Tarrant, Parker, Wise, Denton or Dallas county and need an experienced criminal defense lawyer give me a call!
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
NORML - Attorney David Sloane to use Medical “Necessity” as Defense to Prosecution in Marijuana Possession case.
WEATHERFORD, TEXAS - On September 30, 2010 detectives from Weatherford Police Department appeared at the residence of a 52-year-old Weatherford man who smokes marijuana to alleviate his suffering from diabetic neuropathy with severe symptoms including chronic pain and insomnia. He has done so with the full knowledge and support of his physicians claiming they could not provide him with the synthetic substitute Marinol because it was heavily regulated and reserved for Cancer and HIV patients. The detectives told the man they had received “a tip” that he was growing marijuana on the premises. Once inside they found one cannabis plant growing and approximate 1.5 ounces of cannabis already harvested. Whether this case will be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony is yet to be determined depending on the dried weight of the cannabis seized.
Fort Worth Attorney David Sloane says he intends to raise the defense of necessity as well as other procedural and constitutional grounds in defending this case. Sloane is a legislative committee member for the National Organization of Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and an officer of the local DFW NORML chapter. Sloane says fifteen states now recognize the medical need and necessity of lawful marijuana use. A 2009 Texas bill that would have allowed seriously ill patients to raise a medical necessity defense to the specific offense of marijuana possession died in committee. Sloane said he sees no problem proceeding without this legislation under these circumstances. Texas penal law already provides for a justification of necessity for all criminal law violations “if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm” and “the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweighs…the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct. “ Had the 2009 bill passed it might have curtailed number of needless arrest of medical patients here in Texas but that doesn’t mean the common and statutory defenses and justifications for all offenses aren’t still available to us in the courts.
I must admit I was a little intimidated in trying this even though my repeated application of the facts to the law in this case told me this is what I should do. I had never even heard of anyone else trying it here Sloane said. But then I found a case from Amarillo with substantially similar facts where it took the jury eleven-minutes to find a marijuana patient not guilty when they were given the opportunity to consider his medical necessity. I have gone from believing it would be a long-shot to believing it would be malpractice not to raise it in defending a medical marijuana patient with what appears to be a genuine need. Sloane said if the Texas legislature wants to continue dragging their heels by ignoring the medical needs of their citizens that’s fine I guess. But I’m going to do my job. And I’m hoping these judges and juries will do theirs.
Fort Worth Attorney David Sloane says he intends to raise the defense of necessity as well as other procedural and constitutional grounds in defending this case. Sloane is a legislative committee member for the National Organization of Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and an officer of the local DFW NORML chapter. Sloane says fifteen states now recognize the medical need and necessity of lawful marijuana use. A 2009 Texas bill that would have allowed seriously ill patients to raise a medical necessity defense to the specific offense of marijuana possession died in committee. Sloane said he sees no problem proceeding without this legislation under these circumstances. Texas penal law already provides for a justification of necessity for all criminal law violations “if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm” and “the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweighs…the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct. “ Had the 2009 bill passed it might have curtailed number of needless arrest of medical patients here in Texas but that doesn’t mean the common and statutory defenses and justifications for all offenses aren’t still available to us in the courts.
I must admit I was a little intimidated in trying this even though my repeated application of the facts to the law in this case told me this is what I should do. I had never even heard of anyone else trying it here Sloane said. But then I found a case from Amarillo with substantially similar facts where it took the jury eleven-minutes to find a marijuana patient not guilty when they were given the opportunity to consider his medical necessity. I have gone from believing it would be a long-shot to believing it would be malpractice not to raise it in defending a medical marijuana patient with what appears to be a genuine need. Sloane said if the Texas legislature wants to continue dragging their heels by ignoring the medical needs of their citizens that’s fine I guess. But I’m going to do my job. And I’m hoping these judges and juries will do theirs.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Small Marijuana growers oppose corporate Hydrophonic farms.
A proposal to create four large-scale marijuana factories in Oakland has touched off a turf war in the lucrative market for medicinal marijuana. Established local merchants are trying to hold their ground against entrepreneurs who are seeking to gain a foothold in the rapidly evolving industry.
A nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization providing local coverage of the San Francisco Bay Area for The New York Times. To join the conversation about this article, go to http://www.baycitizen.org.
Under the proposal, which will be debated by the City Council on Tuesday, Oakland would issue four permits to operate the factories, which are currently not limited in size or scale. One would-be applicant is planning a 7.4-acre complex that could produce over 21,000 pounds of marijuana a year.
Based on current prices, such a factory would generate about $60 million in annual revenue, more than twice the gross receipts for Oakland’s four medical marijuana dispensaries last year.
Taxes on cannabis cultivation and sales could generate millions of dollars for Oakland, once the program is up and running, and create hundreds of jobs, according to supporters. The ordinance — written by Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who is also a mayoral candidate, and Councilman Larry Reid — would also require the factories to pay a $211,000 “regulatory fee.”
“I think it’s a total win-win for everyone,” Ms. Kaplan said last week, after the Public Safety Committee voted 3 to 1 on Tuesday to send the cultivation ordinance to the full City Council.
The proposal is creating discord between businesses seeking to preserve the status quo and others who are trying to carve out new businesses in advance of Proposition 19, a November ballot measure that would legalize marijuana for adult recreational use in California.
“It’s big business; you’re talking about manufacturing gold,” said Jeff Jones, a longtime marijuana activist working with the legalization effort. “There’s going to be stakeholders, different opinions and different approaches, which lead to bickering like in any other marketplace.”
One of the most vocal critics of the cultivation proposal is Stephen DeAngelo, executive director of Harborside Health Center, the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world. With outlets in Oakland and San Jose, Harborside has 58,000 members, or patients, who can buy dozens of strains of marijuana packaged in vacuum-sealed bags or in edible forms ranging from cookies to gelato.
The dispensary receives its marijuana from about 400 member/suppliers who deliver one or two pounds of cannabis at a time. Allowing large-scale production in Oakland would crowd out those small growers, according to Harborside officials and the dispensary’s lawyer.
“Why does this whole new system have to be created?” Mr. DeAngelo asked in an interview. “Let’s bring these citizen farmers out of the shadows and into the light and give them a role in this new industry.”
Jeff Wilcox, a Bay Area businessman, is an outspoken proponent of the industrial pot permits as well as a leading advocate for the Proposition 19 initiative. Mr. Wilcox is hoping to obtain one of the four permits to build AgraMed, a marijuana production complex on 7.4 acres beside Interstate 880 near Oakland International Airport.
AgraMed would include a bakery to create edible forms of marijuana, a lab to test for potency and contaminants and 100,000 square feet of cultivation space. If he obtains a permit, Mr. Wilcox said, he will offer to lease space to smaller growers.
James Anthony, a lawyer for Harborside, said Mr. Wilcox was a “Johnny-come-lately” motivated by profit, not by the desire to help patients who use marijuana for medical reasons.
Mr. Wilcox responded that Harborside and its supporters had been “sitting in the back just waiting.”
“They started this campaign of lies to kill the cultivation permits,” he said.
Mr. DeAngelo said he was not opposed to the Oakland plan, but wanted to see a permit process that would benefit smaller growers, an opinion that was echoed by many Tuesday at the meeting of the Public Safety Committee.
Oakland is known as a marijuana-friendly city, but friendliness was sometimes in short supply last week as Council members heard hours of contentious public comment on the proposed ordinance.
The Council chambers were filled with members of the Bay Area cannabis industry: dispensary owners, lawyers specializing in medical-marijuana law, would-be permit applicants, subcontractors who see the proposed factories as a means to expand their businesses and growers of all stripes.
A nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization providing local coverage of the San Francisco Bay Area for The New York Times. To join the conversation about this article, go to http://www.baycitizen.org. Some expressed concern that allowing industrial marijuana factories would drive down prices and squeeze out local cultivators.
“I think this ordinance is nothing more than a municipally sanctioned monopoly on medical cannabis,” one grower told the committee.
In a compromise effort, Vice Mayor Jean Quan and Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan suggested that Ms. Kaplan and Mr. Reid devise a similar permit process for medium-sized facilities. Those new rules will be up for discussion in September, but in the meantime, some growers worry that they are being run out of business.
“It’s politics,” said Dan Grace, who runs a 3,000-square-foot nursery for young pot plants called clones. “All you can count on is what we have now, and what we have now is not a process that allows for medium-sized growers.”
Councilwoman Nancy Nadel drew some applause from the audience when she raised concerns that the cultivation ordinance was not legal under state or federal law. “I don’t see any rush to do this until we know what happens in November,” Ms. Nadel said, referring to the ballot initiative.
Ms. Quan warned, however, that if Oakland did not act quickly, other cities could seize the opportunity to become a hub for the expanding medical-marijuana industry. “I want Oakland to be in place, so I want to move this out,” she said.
The debate was heated in part because the proposed ordinance has gone through several revisions, and rumors have swirled about the regulations. City Council members said they received a flood of calls amid concerns that all dispensaries would be required to buy marijuana from the industrial facilities. But that is not a requirement.
Until recently, cultivation of medical marijuana has not been closely regulated in any California cities.
“Our real goal is to eliminate a lot of the public problems stemming from illegal and unregulated cultivation,” said Dhar Mann, an Oakland businessman who plans to apply for one of the permits if the proposal passes.
A report attached to the proposal said residential electrical fires in Oakland rose from 133 in 2006 to 290 in 2009, a spike, it said, “likely attributable to cannabis cultivation.” There were also eight robberies, seven burglaries and two homicides linked to marijuana growing, the report said.
Mr. Mann, 26, owns a 15,000-square-foot hydroponic supply store called iGrow, which will soon open franchises in eight states. He recently scouted another large-scale warehouse with an architect and security contractor in the hope of growing marijuana there.
If he receives a permit, Mr. Mann said, he will outfit the building with solar panels, a grass roof and a state-of-the-art security system.
A nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization providing local coverage of the San Francisco Bay Area for The New York Times. To join the conversation about this article, go to http://www.baycitizen.org.
Under the proposal, which will be debated by the City Council on Tuesday, Oakland would issue four permits to operate the factories, which are currently not limited in size or scale. One would-be applicant is planning a 7.4-acre complex that could produce over 21,000 pounds of marijuana a year.
Based on current prices, such a factory would generate about $60 million in annual revenue, more than twice the gross receipts for Oakland’s four medical marijuana dispensaries last year.
Taxes on cannabis cultivation and sales could generate millions of dollars for Oakland, once the program is up and running, and create hundreds of jobs, according to supporters. The ordinance — written by Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who is also a mayoral candidate, and Councilman Larry Reid — would also require the factories to pay a $211,000 “regulatory fee.”
“I think it’s a total win-win for everyone,” Ms. Kaplan said last week, after the Public Safety Committee voted 3 to 1 on Tuesday to send the cultivation ordinance to the full City Council.
The proposal is creating discord between businesses seeking to preserve the status quo and others who are trying to carve out new businesses in advance of Proposition 19, a November ballot measure that would legalize marijuana for adult recreational use in California.
“It’s big business; you’re talking about manufacturing gold,” said Jeff Jones, a longtime marijuana activist working with the legalization effort. “There’s going to be stakeholders, different opinions and different approaches, which lead to bickering like in any other marketplace.”
One of the most vocal critics of the cultivation proposal is Stephen DeAngelo, executive director of Harborside Health Center, the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world. With outlets in Oakland and San Jose, Harborside has 58,000 members, or patients, who can buy dozens of strains of marijuana packaged in vacuum-sealed bags or in edible forms ranging from cookies to gelato.
The dispensary receives its marijuana from about 400 member/suppliers who deliver one or two pounds of cannabis at a time. Allowing large-scale production in Oakland would crowd out those small growers, according to Harborside officials and the dispensary’s lawyer.
“Why does this whole new system have to be created?” Mr. DeAngelo asked in an interview. “Let’s bring these citizen farmers out of the shadows and into the light and give them a role in this new industry.”
Jeff Wilcox, a Bay Area businessman, is an outspoken proponent of the industrial pot permits as well as a leading advocate for the Proposition 19 initiative. Mr. Wilcox is hoping to obtain one of the four permits to build AgraMed, a marijuana production complex on 7.4 acres beside Interstate 880 near Oakland International Airport.
AgraMed would include a bakery to create edible forms of marijuana, a lab to test for potency and contaminants and 100,000 square feet of cultivation space. If he obtains a permit, Mr. Wilcox said, he will offer to lease space to smaller growers.
James Anthony, a lawyer for Harborside, said Mr. Wilcox was a “Johnny-come-lately” motivated by profit, not by the desire to help patients who use marijuana for medical reasons.
Mr. Wilcox responded that Harborside and its supporters had been “sitting in the back just waiting.”
“They started this campaign of lies to kill the cultivation permits,” he said.
Mr. DeAngelo said he was not opposed to the Oakland plan, but wanted to see a permit process that would benefit smaller growers, an opinion that was echoed by many Tuesday at the meeting of the Public Safety Committee.
Oakland is known as a marijuana-friendly city, but friendliness was sometimes in short supply last week as Council members heard hours of contentious public comment on the proposed ordinance.
The Council chambers were filled with members of the Bay Area cannabis industry: dispensary owners, lawyers specializing in medical-marijuana law, would-be permit applicants, subcontractors who see the proposed factories as a means to expand their businesses and growers of all stripes.
A nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization providing local coverage of the San Francisco Bay Area for The New York Times. To join the conversation about this article, go to http://www.baycitizen.org. Some expressed concern that allowing industrial marijuana factories would drive down prices and squeeze out local cultivators.
“I think this ordinance is nothing more than a municipally sanctioned monopoly on medical cannabis,” one grower told the committee.
In a compromise effort, Vice Mayor Jean Quan and Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan suggested that Ms. Kaplan and Mr. Reid devise a similar permit process for medium-sized facilities. Those new rules will be up for discussion in September, but in the meantime, some growers worry that they are being run out of business.
“It’s politics,” said Dan Grace, who runs a 3,000-square-foot nursery for young pot plants called clones. “All you can count on is what we have now, and what we have now is not a process that allows for medium-sized growers.”
Councilwoman Nancy Nadel drew some applause from the audience when she raised concerns that the cultivation ordinance was not legal under state or federal law. “I don’t see any rush to do this until we know what happens in November,” Ms. Nadel said, referring to the ballot initiative.
Ms. Quan warned, however, that if Oakland did not act quickly, other cities could seize the opportunity to become a hub for the expanding medical-marijuana industry. “I want Oakland to be in place, so I want to move this out,” she said.
The debate was heated in part because the proposed ordinance has gone through several revisions, and rumors have swirled about the regulations. City Council members said they received a flood of calls amid concerns that all dispensaries would be required to buy marijuana from the industrial facilities. But that is not a requirement.
Until recently, cultivation of medical marijuana has not been closely regulated in any California cities.
“Our real goal is to eliminate a lot of the public problems stemming from illegal and unregulated cultivation,” said Dhar Mann, an Oakland businessman who plans to apply for one of the permits if the proposal passes.
A report attached to the proposal said residential electrical fires in Oakland rose from 133 in 2006 to 290 in 2009, a spike, it said, “likely attributable to cannabis cultivation.” There were also eight robberies, seven burglaries and two homicides linked to marijuana growing, the report said.
Mr. Mann, 26, owns a 15,000-square-foot hydroponic supply store called iGrow, which will soon open franchises in eight states. He recently scouted another large-scale warehouse with an architect and security contractor in the hope of growing marijuana there.
If he receives a permit, Mr. Mann said, he will outfit the building with solar panels, a grass roof and a state-of-the-art security system.
New Jersy to become 15th State recognizing Medical Marijuana...yet the Feds STILL list it as Schedule 1 Narcotis as having "no medical use."
Five months before its new medical marijuana law is set to take effect, New Jersey this week moved further away from having answers to basic questions about how the law will work — specifically, who will grow the marijuana and who will dispense it.
Chris Christie’s administration had been pursuing a plan to make Rutgers University the only approved cultivator of cannabis, and to make teaching hospitals the only places where patients could get it.
But on Thursday, Rutgers announced that it would not participate for fear of losing grants from the federal government. State officials said the hospitals had the same concern.
State laws legalizing medical marijuana are at odds with federal law. The Obama administration has stopped the practice of raiding marijuana dispensaries in those states, but the Drug Enforcement Administration remains reluctant to grant permission to grow the plants, even for medical research.
“This is genuinely something we were interested in doing,” said Robert M. Goodman, the executive dean of agriculture and natural resources at Rutgers. “We have agricultural stations; we have programs in medicinally reactive plants, in chemical biology, in pharmacy. It’s a potential new crop for the state, and we’re interested in promoting the state’s economy.”
But, he added, “it just puts too much at risk,” jeopardizing research grants, contracts, student aid or other funds from Washington.
Fourteen states have passed laws allowing medical use of marijuana, but New Jersey’s, signed in January, is in some ways the strictest. The law was written to prevent the proliferation of growers and dispensaries seen in states like California and Colorado, at first limiting the state to six dispensaries run by nonprofits, and it prohibits patients from growing the plants themselves.
New Jersey allows doctors to prescribe marijuana only for patients with terminal illness or a fairly limited set of specific, chronic conditions, and limits each person to two ounces per month, compared with as much as 24 ounces in other states.
Governor Christie, a Republican who took office days after the law was enacted, has sought to make it still more restrictive in the way it is carried out. The administration is supposed to put regulations in place for carrying out the law by Oct. 1, and the law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Michael Drewniak, the governor’s chief spokesman, said Friday that the administration still expected to have dispensaries ready to open in 2011.
“As we’ve said all along, we’ve been considering other options beyond the Rutgers plan,” Mr. Drewniak said, “and we will continue working diligently to implement a high-quality and secure program.” He declined to elaborate.
The governor is angry about the university’s decision, according to officials who were granted anonymity to comment on private discussions, and so are some legislators. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Mercer County who was one of the primary sponsors of the legalization bill, said “the university is chickening out” by not testing federal authorities’ willingness to grant a waiver.
State Senator Nicholas P. Scutari, a Democrat from Linden who was the other main sponsor, said that Mr. Christie wanted too much control over the program and that the state would have no choice but to approve private growers.
“We’ve known this was going to be a concern for Rutgers from the get-go, but the administration indicated no, it’s not going to be a problem,” Mr. Scutari said. And the hospitals, he said, “have got the same exact issue.”
The New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals declined to comment, but several people briefed on the discussions said the hospitals wanted some kind of guarantee that they would not be jeopardizing federal money.
Mr. Christie has said he had concerns about how to carry out the law with enough security. At his request, the Legislature delayed putting the law into effect for 90 days.
The plan to use Rutgers and teaching hospitals would have given the state far more direct control over the program than the Legislature intended, but for the most part, lawmakers said they were amenable to the idea if it would work.
Chris Christie’s administration had been pursuing a plan to make Rutgers University the only approved cultivator of cannabis, and to make teaching hospitals the only places where patients could get it.
But on Thursday, Rutgers announced that it would not participate for fear of losing grants from the federal government. State officials said the hospitals had the same concern.
State laws legalizing medical marijuana are at odds with federal law. The Obama administration has stopped the practice of raiding marijuana dispensaries in those states, but the Drug Enforcement Administration remains reluctant to grant permission to grow the plants, even for medical research.
“This is genuinely something we were interested in doing,” said Robert M. Goodman, the executive dean of agriculture and natural resources at Rutgers. “We have agricultural stations; we have programs in medicinally reactive plants, in chemical biology, in pharmacy. It’s a potential new crop for the state, and we’re interested in promoting the state’s economy.”
But, he added, “it just puts too much at risk,” jeopardizing research grants, contracts, student aid or other funds from Washington.
Fourteen states have passed laws allowing medical use of marijuana, but New Jersey’s, signed in January, is in some ways the strictest. The law was written to prevent the proliferation of growers and dispensaries seen in states like California and Colorado, at first limiting the state to six dispensaries run by nonprofits, and it prohibits patients from growing the plants themselves.
New Jersey allows doctors to prescribe marijuana only for patients with terminal illness or a fairly limited set of specific, chronic conditions, and limits each person to two ounces per month, compared with as much as 24 ounces in other states.
Governor Christie, a Republican who took office days after the law was enacted, has sought to make it still more restrictive in the way it is carried out. The administration is supposed to put regulations in place for carrying out the law by Oct. 1, and the law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Michael Drewniak, the governor’s chief spokesman, said Friday that the administration still expected to have dispensaries ready to open in 2011.
“As we’ve said all along, we’ve been considering other options beyond the Rutgers plan,” Mr. Drewniak said, “and we will continue working diligently to implement a high-quality and secure program.” He declined to elaborate.
The governor is angry about the university’s decision, according to officials who were granted anonymity to comment on private discussions, and so are some legislators. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Mercer County who was one of the primary sponsors of the legalization bill, said “the university is chickening out” by not testing federal authorities’ willingness to grant a waiver.
State Senator Nicholas P. Scutari, a Democrat from Linden who was the other main sponsor, said that Mr. Christie wanted too much control over the program and that the state would have no choice but to approve private growers.
“We’ve known this was going to be a concern for Rutgers from the get-go, but the administration indicated no, it’s not going to be a problem,” Mr. Scutari said. And the hospitals, he said, “have got the same exact issue.”
The New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals declined to comment, but several people briefed on the discussions said the hospitals wanted some kind of guarantee that they would not be jeopardizing federal money.
Mr. Christie has said he had concerns about how to carry out the law with enough security. At his request, the Legislature delayed putting the law into effect for 90 days.
The plan to use Rutgers and teaching hospitals would have given the state far more direct control over the program than the Legislature intended, but for the most part, lawmakers said they were amenable to the idea if it would work.
Veteran's Hospitals easing rules on Medical Marijuana us will not affect hosptals in Fort Worth, Texas
DENVER — The Department of Veterans Affairs will formally allow patients treated at its hospitals and clinics to use medical marijuana in states where it is legal, a policy clarification that veterans have sought for several years.
A department directive, expected to take effect next week, resolves the conflict in veterans facilities between federal law, which outlaws marijuana, and the 14 states that allow medicinal use of the drug, effectively deferring to the states.
The policy will not permit department doctors to prescribe marijuana. But it will address the concern of many patients who use the drug that they could lose access to their prescription pain medication if caught.
Under department rules, veterans can be denied pain medications if they are found to be using illegal drugs. Until now, the department had no written exception for medical marijuana.
This has led many patients to distrust their doctors, veterans say. With doctors and patients pressing the veterans department for formal guidance, agency officials began drafting a policy last fall.
“When states start legalizing marijuana we are put in a bit of a unique position because as a federal agency, we are beholden to federal law,” said Dr. Robert Jesse, the principal deputy under secretary for health in the veterans department.
At the same time, Dr. Jesse said, “We didn’t want patients who were legally using marijuana to be administratively denied access to pain management programs.”
The new, written policy applies only to veterans using medical marijuana in states where it is legal. Doctors may still modify a veteran’s treatment plan if the veteran is using marijuana, or decide not to prescribe pain medicine altogether if there is a risk of a drug interaction. But that decision will be made on a case-by-case basis, not as blanket policy, Dr. Jesse said.
Though veterans of the Vietnam War were the first group to use marijuana widely for medical purposes, the population of veterans using it now spans generations, said Michael Krawitz, executive director of Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, which worked with the department on formulating a policy.
Veterans, some of whom have been at the forefront of the medical marijuana movement, praised the department’s decision. They say cannabis helps soothe physical and psychological pain and can alleviate the side effects of some treatments.
“By creating a directive on medical marijuana, the V.A. ensures that throughout its vast hospital network, it will be well understood that legal medical marijuana use will not be the basis for the denial of services,” Mr. Krawitz said.
Although the Obama administration has not embraced medical marijuana, last October, in a policy shift, the Justice Department announced that it would not prosecute people who used or distributed it in states where it was legal.
Laura Sweeney, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, would not comment spefically on the veterans department policy. “What we have said in the past, and what we have said for a while, is that we are going to focus our federal resources on large scale drug traffickers,” she said. “We are not going to focus on individual cancer patients or something of the like.”
Many clinicians already prescribe pain medication to veterans who use medical marijuana, as there was no rule explicitly prohibiting them from doing so, despite the federal marijuana laws.
Advocates of medical marijuana use say that in the past, the patchwork of veterans hospitals and clinics around the country were sometimes unclear how to deal with veterans who needed pain medications and were legally using medical marijuana. The department’s emphasis on keeping patients off illegal drugs and from abusing their medication “gave many practitioners the feeling that they are supposed to police marijuana out of the system,” Mr. Krawitz said.
“Many medical-marijuana-using veterans have just abandoned the V.A. hospital system completely for this reason,” he said, “and others that stay in the system feel that they are not able to trust that their doctor will be working in their best interests.”
In rare cases, veterans have been told that they need to stop using marijuana, even if it is legal, or risk losing their prescription medicine, Mr. Krawitz said.
David Fox, 58, an Army veteran from Pompey’s Pillar, Mont., uses medical marijuana legally to help quiet the pain he experiences from neuropathy, a nerve disorder. But he said he was told this year by a doctor at a veterans’ clinic in Billings that if he did not stop using marijuana, he would no longer get the pain medication he was also prescribed.
A letter written to Mr. Fox in April from Robin Korogi, the director of the veterans health care system in Montana, explained that the department did not want to prescribe pain medicine in combination with marijuana because there was no evidence that marijuana worked for noncancer patients and because the combination was unsafe.
“In those states where medical marijuana is legal, the patient will need to make a choice as to which medication they choose to use for their chronic pain,” Ms. Korogi wrote. “However, it is not medically appropriate to expect that a V.A. physician will prescribe narcotics while the patient is taking marijuana.”
Mr. Fox was shocked by the decision, he said.
“I felt literally abandoned,” he said. “I still needed my pain meds. I thought they were supposed to treat you. It was devastating for me.”
Mr. Fox, who said that at one point he was weaning himself off his pain medication for fear of running out, has held one-man protests in front of the clinic, carrying signs that read “Abandoned by V.A., Refused Treatment.”
Veterans officials would not comment on specific cases, citing medical privacy laws.
This month, Dr. Robert A. Petzel, the under secretary for health for the veterans department, sent a letter to Mr. Krawitz laying out the department’s policy. If a veteran obtains and uses medical marijuana in accordance with state law, Dr. Petzel wrote, he should not be precluded from receiving opioids for pain management at a veterans facility.
Dr. Petzel also said that pain management agreements between clinicians and patients, which are used as guidelines for courses of treatment, “should draw a clear distinction between the use of illegal drugs, and legal medical marijuana.”
Dr. Jesse, the veterans department official, said that formalizing rules on medical marijuana would eliminate any future confusion and keep patients from being squeezed between state and federal law.
Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, which favors the legal regulation of the drug, called the decision historic. “We now have a branch of the federal government accepting marijuana as a legal medicine,” he said.
But Mr. Fox said he wished the policy had been extended to veterans who lived in states where medical marijuana was not legal.
He said it was critical that the veterans department make its guidelines clear to patients and medical staff members, something officials said they planned on doing in coming weeks.
Said Dr. Jesse, “The whole goal of issuing a national policy is to make sure we have uniformity across the system.”
A department directive, expected to take effect next week, resolves the conflict in veterans facilities between federal law, which outlaws marijuana, and the 14 states that allow medicinal use of the drug, effectively deferring to the states.
The policy will not permit department doctors to prescribe marijuana. But it will address the concern of many patients who use the drug that they could lose access to their prescription pain medication if caught.
Under department rules, veterans can be denied pain medications if they are found to be using illegal drugs. Until now, the department had no written exception for medical marijuana.
This has led many patients to distrust their doctors, veterans say. With doctors and patients pressing the veterans department for formal guidance, agency officials began drafting a policy last fall.
“When states start legalizing marijuana we are put in a bit of a unique position because as a federal agency, we are beholden to federal law,” said Dr. Robert Jesse, the principal deputy under secretary for health in the veterans department.
At the same time, Dr. Jesse said, “We didn’t want patients who were legally using marijuana to be administratively denied access to pain management programs.”
The new, written policy applies only to veterans using medical marijuana in states where it is legal. Doctors may still modify a veteran’s treatment plan if the veteran is using marijuana, or decide not to prescribe pain medicine altogether if there is a risk of a drug interaction. But that decision will be made on a case-by-case basis, not as blanket policy, Dr. Jesse said.
Though veterans of the Vietnam War were the first group to use marijuana widely for medical purposes, the population of veterans using it now spans generations, said Michael Krawitz, executive director of Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, which worked with the department on formulating a policy.
Veterans, some of whom have been at the forefront of the medical marijuana movement, praised the department’s decision. They say cannabis helps soothe physical and psychological pain and can alleviate the side effects of some treatments.
“By creating a directive on medical marijuana, the V.A. ensures that throughout its vast hospital network, it will be well understood that legal medical marijuana use will not be the basis for the denial of services,” Mr. Krawitz said.
Although the Obama administration has not embraced medical marijuana, last October, in a policy shift, the Justice Department announced that it would not prosecute people who used or distributed it in states where it was legal.
Laura Sweeney, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, would not comment spefically on the veterans department policy. “What we have said in the past, and what we have said for a while, is that we are going to focus our federal resources on large scale drug traffickers,” she said. “We are not going to focus on individual cancer patients or something of the like.”
Many clinicians already prescribe pain medication to veterans who use medical marijuana, as there was no rule explicitly prohibiting them from doing so, despite the federal marijuana laws.
Advocates of medical marijuana use say that in the past, the patchwork of veterans hospitals and clinics around the country were sometimes unclear how to deal with veterans who needed pain medications and were legally using medical marijuana. The department’s emphasis on keeping patients off illegal drugs and from abusing their medication “gave many practitioners the feeling that they are supposed to police marijuana out of the system,” Mr. Krawitz said.
“Many medical-marijuana-using veterans have just abandoned the V.A. hospital system completely for this reason,” he said, “and others that stay in the system feel that they are not able to trust that their doctor will be working in their best interests.”
In rare cases, veterans have been told that they need to stop using marijuana, even if it is legal, or risk losing their prescription medicine, Mr. Krawitz said.
David Fox, 58, an Army veteran from Pompey’s Pillar, Mont., uses medical marijuana legally to help quiet the pain he experiences from neuropathy, a nerve disorder. But he said he was told this year by a doctor at a veterans’ clinic in Billings that if he did not stop using marijuana, he would no longer get the pain medication he was also prescribed.
A letter written to Mr. Fox in April from Robin Korogi, the director of the veterans health care system in Montana, explained that the department did not want to prescribe pain medicine in combination with marijuana because there was no evidence that marijuana worked for noncancer patients and because the combination was unsafe.
“In those states where medical marijuana is legal, the patient will need to make a choice as to which medication they choose to use for their chronic pain,” Ms. Korogi wrote. “However, it is not medically appropriate to expect that a V.A. physician will prescribe narcotics while the patient is taking marijuana.”
Mr. Fox was shocked by the decision, he said.
“I felt literally abandoned,” he said. “I still needed my pain meds. I thought they were supposed to treat you. It was devastating for me.”
Mr. Fox, who said that at one point he was weaning himself off his pain medication for fear of running out, has held one-man protests in front of the clinic, carrying signs that read “Abandoned by V.A., Refused Treatment.”
Veterans officials would not comment on specific cases, citing medical privacy laws.
This month, Dr. Robert A. Petzel, the under secretary for health for the veterans department, sent a letter to Mr. Krawitz laying out the department’s policy. If a veteran obtains and uses medical marijuana in accordance with state law, Dr. Petzel wrote, he should not be precluded from receiving opioids for pain management at a veterans facility.
Dr. Petzel also said that pain management agreements between clinicians and patients, which are used as guidelines for courses of treatment, “should draw a clear distinction between the use of illegal drugs, and legal medical marijuana.”
Dr. Jesse, the veterans department official, said that formalizing rules on medical marijuana would eliminate any future confusion and keep patients from being squeezed between state and federal law.
Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, which favors the legal regulation of the drug, called the decision historic. “We now have a branch of the federal government accepting marijuana as a legal medicine,” he said.
But Mr. Fox said he wished the policy had been extended to veterans who lived in states where medical marijuana was not legal.
He said it was critical that the veterans department make its guidelines clear to patients and medical staff members, something officials said they planned on doing in coming weeks.
Said Dr. Jesse, “The whole goal of issuing a national policy is to make sure we have uniformity across the system.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
